Do not panic bears!!
This is just the usual blip upward before this market resumes its march to oblivion.
Keep adding more shorts!!!
Remember:
"The price always goes back down"
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22153. (Read 26609297 times)
April 03, 2015, 01:06:33 PM
April 03, 2015, 01:02:19 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"
fuck them. no miners no network.
April 03, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble. So they would have no monetary gain at all. It makes no economical sense, you suggest that the miners could agree on it and everyone who pays their bills (the buyers) would just be like ah okay. Not gonna happen.
Edit: Lets also not forget that 51% is where it becomes possible, its still a hard thing to do and to pull off succesfully would likely require much more than that.
I might have fallen and hit my head, but I thought the 51% attack was related to transactions. To change the halving you would have to change the bitcoin client. Those "bad miners" would be mining an alt.
April 03, 2015, 12:58:39 PM
April 03, 2015, 12:53:38 PM
Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble.
Already replied to that. It is a subjective prediction of how "the bitcoiners" would behave. My view of "the bitcoiners" and their motivations is obviously very different from yours.Quote
You suggest that the miners could agree on it and everyone who pays their bills (the buyers) would just be like ah okay. Not gonna happen.
Today, the new investors (those who buy or earn coins and hold them for a while) are quite happily paying 900'000 $/day to the miners, plus who-knows-how-much to the earlier investors who are selling; money that will never come back to the system. The new investors cannot be entirely conscious of that. So, if the halving were to be postponed, they would probably not take notice, and continue pouring in the same daily amounts, either way.
By the way, don't expect the price to immediately double when the next halving happens. The miners will put 1800 fewer coins per day on the markets, but many earlier investors will start selling their coins once the price rises a little. In other words, there is lots of hidden liquidity in the old hoards, that will readily absorb the 450'000 k$/day that the miners will stop receiving.
April 03, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
again this story about short squeeze?
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
Enough yapping. But I suppose that is all you can do apart from help the price higher when you cover.
I am tempted to move more funds to bitfinex and short sell more, actually.
but I dont trust them that much.
bistamp feels safe.
that support at 250 is laughable. I mean, bears are just waiting for more walls to be placed in that area.
and you are a fucking bull sockpuppet inca. I piss on you.
April 03, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"
April 03, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
again this story about short squeeze?
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
Enough yapping. But I suppose that is all you can do apart from help the price higher when you cover.
April 03, 2015, 12:42:16 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
in any case, if one small group starts to mine this 25mill BTC bitcoin fork, it doesn't it mean everyone else can't continue to mine the original 21mill BTC bitcoin. And there would be HUGE incentive for poeple like me (highly invested but never got a miner) to get a miner and add hashrate to the original 21mill BTC bitcoin.
it would be like this massive cryptonic-hashrate-cyber war
fucking wonderful!
April 03, 2015, 12:39:02 PM
again this story about short squeeze?
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.
we need you.
April 03, 2015, 12:32:52 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble. So they would have no monetary gain at all. It makes no economical sense, you suggest that the miners could agree on it and everyone who pays their bills (the buyers) would just be like ah okay. Not gonna happen.
Edit: Lets also not forget that 51% is where it becomes possible, its still a hard thing to do and to pull off succesfully would likely require much more than that.
April 03, 2015, 12:29:13 PM
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Did you read the posts?
Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving. I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.
Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China. Do we know what they may want?
Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%. Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.
But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...
April 03, 2015, 12:11:45 PM
Shorts up to 24541.
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
Wait a minute, you telling me I could loan out a couple hundred coins and be making .14 per day?
That's more than I make from mining! What's the catch? Where's the risk?
You'd have to trust leaving those coins on an exchange.
April 03, 2015, 12:05:34 PM
its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...
The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit. On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue.
The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price. The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started. Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic...
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
It would be easier to reach a consensus on some technical detail with a protocol that didn't get taken over by a certain few too fast and so early on old API technology. It seemed like satoshi knew from the start there was a chance of this happening but not as early as it did.
If there were enough people using this network, is there a chance they would have a word on the consensus process comparable to banks?
https://rippletest.net/
April 03, 2015, 12:04:17 PM
Shorts up to 24541.
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
Wait a minute, you telling me I could loan out a couple hundred coins and be making .14 per day?
That's more than I make from mining! What's the catch? Where's the risk?
April 03, 2015, 11:58:43 AM
April 03, 2015, 11:53:08 AM
Shorts up to 24541.
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
Hmm.
Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%
April 03, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
Trolls keep trollin', meanwhile bid support at 250 rising steadily...
still relevant
I can't get too excited about being supported at $250 to be honest.
Looking at the number of trades and the amount of investment in bitcoin this year, the price is a bit of a joke.
I guess we should be happy of a good buying opportunity, but only of the market wakes up and reverses the long down treand too, there is no point in being technically right, but losing money anyway!
April 03, 2015, 11:37:51 AM
does everyone still have all their bitcoins ?? #obamatheconfiscater #actsofdesperation #bankruptusa #needsmoneytoservicethedebt
Not everyone, apparently 
Quote
...In addition to the [four year] prison sentence, FAIELLA, 55, of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and was ordered to forfeit $950,000, representing the amount of funds involved in the offense that were intended to promote illegal activity.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January15/RobertFaiellaSentencingPR.php 
April 03, 2015, 11:34:32 AM
its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...
The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit. On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue.
The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price. The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started. Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic...
You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters... A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.
Jump to: